Whirlpool suspends 39 workers, says they lied about smoking

[shain from kane]

By TOM MURPHY
AP Business Writer

http://www.bnd.com/430/story/318531.html
INDIANAPOLIS --Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.

A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.
---------------------------------------

Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.

In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.

Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking...

------------------------------------
The employees were suspended without pay, and they'll present their case at "fact-finding" meetings before management determines their fate. Whirlpool had to recall some laid-off workers to keep production running due to the suspensions.

------------------------------
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.

"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.

[peacetalksforall]

1. TO Lewis Maltby = National Workrights Institute - how about this lie

being the same as a $500.00 theft? How about more if they lose their policy with the insuror?

[northzax]

2. it's tough to argue in this case

they signed paperwork saying they didn't smoke, and either lied then or started again and were foolish enough to do it on company property. While I don't think they should be fired, Whirlpool can, I believe now give them the option of paying the extra $500, submitting to random nicotine testing to ensure compliance OR entering a company sponsored nicotine cessation program. These things may already be in use, I have no idea, but they have to enforce this somehow, since it's not fair to the people who a: don't use tobacco and pay higher premiums, or b: DO use, and pay even higher premiums.

I think the important distinction is that the tobacco use was on company property, the implication being during working hours.

[shain from kane]

4. Are the employees lying and smoking in Mexico?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x9543

[northzax]

5. nah, Oklahoma and Indiana

since this plant is in Indiana (the one in Cleveland being shut down and split between Oklahoma and Mexico is an old Maytag facility)

and what does this have to do with the post at hand?

[shain from kane]

6. Are all employees being treated the same way, wherever they are located? Are the Mexican workers

receiving the same health benefits, under the same conditions?

[LynneSin]

7. What does Mexico matter in this situation

:shrug:

Yes, I know Whirlpool has factories there but Health Care policies vary not only state-to-state but country-to-country.

I'm with Northax on this one - the employees lied. I wish there was something a bit less harsh that could have been done but they did lie and they were stupid enough to be caught smoking on company property.

[shain from kane]

17. We're talking about competition here, even at the employee stage. If an employer makes rules that

are so restrictive, or tend to aggravate the workforce, or to bring unions into the situation to protect workers' rights, then the employer can blame the workforce, and look for more pacified workers who are just happy to have a job. Is that the direction that you want the country to go, to a laborforce that will accept anything that is dealt to them without objection?

[northzax]

13. well, since Mexican law mandates health coverage

probably fairly equivalent,given the cost differential and levels of service available in Mexico (it doesn't say where in Mexico the plant is going to operate, after all) Mexico is beginning the process of going to universal health care, making the costs even lower.

but I am sure that if the Mexican Insurance scheme they use offers substantial discounts for non-smokers, they will avail themselves of that as well.

[gollygee]

3. My husband's company asks us this each year

they ask if we smoke, and they ask if we wear seatbelts every time we're in the car. We say yes, and we each get $50 for each yes answer. If we lied, we'd be stealing from them, and though it isn't a large amount to steal, it's still stealing and it isn't unreasonable for a company to fire employees who steal from them.

[davsand]

8. I can see making them pay the extra $500.

Seems reasonable enough to me. I do not feel, however, that doing something in their off time that is still legal should cost somebody a job. Are they gonna start screening for risky sexual behaviors now too?



Laura

[Ilsa]

12. When they are off the clock, it shouldn't be an issue. But these

employees were blatantly violating the rules they had agreed to while on company property. If you want to smoke on company grounds, be prepared to pay up.

Maybe management should have told them they were going to switch them back to the smokers' policy versus firing them.

[madinmaryland]

9. My issue is that the employers are being given the green light

to intrude on their employees personal life. IF we had Universal/single-payer health care, this would be a moot point.

:grr:

[gollygee]

10. That's absolutley true

it is ridiculous that our health care system is tied to employers. It doesn't help employees or employers. It only seems to help insurance companies.

[Tektonik]

11. agreed but with the current shitty system

I don't think Whirlpool made a bad decision.

[Fumesucker]

14. The "green light" was given a couple of decades ago..

Workplace "drug testing" has been in force for a long time.

What else is that but employer intrusion on the employee's personal life?

[northzax]

15. personal life?

nothing you do at work counts as 'personal' when you do it in sight of other people.

[madinmaryland]

16. My point is a bit different than that.

I'm fine if an employer wants to ban a certain behavior on company property, as that is their right. My concern is when the employer starts dictating employee behavior off their property.

[northzax]

19. they aren't dictating behaviour

in this particular case, they are, in essence, rewarding those who choose not to engage in a certain high risk behaviour that affects the company's bottom line. These employees aren't in trouble for smoking, per se, they are in trouble for telling the company they didn't smoke, claiming a $500 annual benefit for it, and then smoking anyway. THe company doesn't say "you can't smoke" they say "if you don't smoke, we will knock $500/year off your insurance premiums" seems perfectly reasonable to me (And I am a smoker)

[NaturalHigh]

18. No way these workers should be fired...

but I understand the higher insurance premiums. I smoke, and I pay more for my life insurance because of it. I'm fat too, and that also raises the price.

[northzax]

20. and if you lied to your life insurance company

about smoking, and they caught you smoking, they would terminate your policy, right?